Talk:Ramberg–Osgood relationship
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Need to mention true stress-strain curve vs. engineeing stress-strain curve
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.222.148 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
More information
[edit]I think this page needs some more information to make sense. Jamescaf512 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The curve seems to be wrong compare to the theory. You have to replace plastic strain and elastic strain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.196.142.21 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
n vs 1/n
[edit]There appears to be some confusion among editors as to the hardening constant, n, used in the Ramberg-Osgood equation. Both (n vs. 1/n) can be correct but the meaning is different. If the value of n is taken to be the Hollomon strain hardening constant then the R-O formulation should use (1/n). If n is taken to be a separate constant as defined in the original R-O paper it is actually equal to the inverse of the Hollomon strain hardening constant. See the link below (section on Ramberg-Osgood) for a good summary. I have returned the n values to their derivations in the original papers even though it may be less practical and using the Hollomon version of n.
https://mechanicalc.com/reference/mechanical-properties-of-materials